About your Search

20130101
20130131
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19
down the iron curtain and changing the entry into the eu of those countries that lost so many of their use to communism. and contained in this history is the crucial point about britain, about our national character, about our attitude to europe. britain is characterized not just by its independence but above all, by its openness. we have always been a country that reaches out that turns its face to the world that leads the charge in the fight for free trade and against protectionism. this is britain today, as it's always been. independent, yes, but open, too. i never want us to pull up the drawbridge and retreat from the world. i am not a british isolationist. but i do want a better deal for britain. but not just a better deal for britain. i want a better deal for europe, too. so i speak as a british prime minister with a positive vision for the future of the european union. a future in which britain wants, and should want, to play a committed and active part. now, some might then ask, why raise fundamental questions about the future of europe when europe is already in the mi
of a couple in the last year to syria when the e.u.'s embargo changed, the provisions of that changed and so, i think those are advantages. >> thank you. >> mike gates. >> can you confirm in the case of an agreement between the u.k. and another government perhaps some kind of defense cooperation that doesn't have the same status as the, where we are talking about restrictions or controls on the arms exports that are purchased from british companies or exported from this country? in other words, if the mod decides to transfer equipment to another state that wouldn't be subjected to the same criteria as would apply with regards to the armed export regime? . . >> if you have further information; that would be helpful. okay. that's fine. can i ask you about the review as regards the workload that you referred to for ministers, the number of items for consideration: you said thorough overseeing of ministers went up 235 this year compared to 153 last year and 39 in the previous year before your middle east and north africa review. >> right. >> this is presumably dealt with by the human rights sect
%, the transport budget by 15% and the police budget by 20%, how can we even be giving up on a cut in the e.u. budget before the negotiations have begun? >> we have to make cuts in budgets, because we're dealing with a record debt and deficit. but if he wants to talk about consistency, perhaps he can explain why his own members of the european parliament voted against the budget freeze that we achieved last year? perhaps he can explain why the socialist group in the european parliament that he's such a proud member of are calling not for an increase in the budget, not for a freeze in the budget, but for a 200 billion euro increase in the budget? and while they're at it, they want to get rid of the rest of the british rebate. is that his policy? >> the reality is this: he can't convince anyone on europe. last year he announced out of the december negotiations with a veto and the agreement went ahead anyway. you've thrown in the towel even before these negotiations have begun. he can't convince european leaders, he can't even convince his own back benchers. he is weak abroad, he is weak at home
there was we should undertake serious discussions between the u.s. and the e.u. at the same time, i think we need to be realistic. i resent the ohio over 10 years ago and i think there were unnecessarily optimistic views about how quickly it could be done and how uncomplicated it was and it turned out that caution was the better part of judgment. the e.u. has immense regulatory issues and they think they would have to be willing, essentially, to open up their markets and not use various procedures to try to safeguard their market. so i favor proceeding, but with an understanding that there are immense issues to be looked at. and it's not going to have been very, very quickly. but i'm in favor of starting it. [inaudible] >> -- which is fancy language for regulations. for now, whether we're going to allow european meat that might be contaminated with mad cow disease and they have the same concern. inevitably out of that will be a reconfiguration of the safety net on both sides of the atlantic. is that a troubling prospect to you? do you see some opportunities to really streamline the way the t
, it is now the e.u. state that is coming up to the first of march deadline of the current e.u. whether they will want to amend that in any way. it could be amended to apply to the regime and not to the opposition forces but it could be amended in many other ways. as a that would require the agreement of all of the states. >> in the syrian opposition i'm interested to know if that could be linked but not lethal. how serious is this embargo and is it possible for example the communications equipment that could be used in conjunction with turkey and some other countries to the elements in your possession. >> well, it's not military. it's certainly not legal. the systems so far include some things like the deployment on the stabilization defense to work with the opposition on the future plans and how they are getting help for people's basic needs and oppositions and training the citizens. we are providing each other actable material in the kits and generators to help civilians in opposition the communications equipment to help activists overcome the communications, blackouts, blockages pro
between the u.s. and the e.u.. at the same time, i think we need to be realistic. i was at doha -- what was that, over ten years ago? and i think there were unnecessarily optimistic views about how quickly it could be done and how uncomplicated it was. and it turned out that caution was the better part of judgment. the e.u. has immense regulatory issues, and i think they would have to be willing, essentially, to open up their markets and not use various procedures to try to safeguard their market. so, um, i favor proceeding but with an understanding that there are immense issues to be, to be looked at. and it's not going to happen very, very quickly. but i'm in fave of starting it -- i'm in favor of starting it. >> [inaudible] nontariff trade barriers which is just simply fancy language for, you know -- >> exactly. >> -- for regulations, you know, whether we're going to allow european feeds that might be con -- needs that might be contaminated with mad cow disease, and they have the same concerns. inevitably out of that is going to come a reconfiguration of the regulatory safety net on
proposals set forth by the u.k. independent commission on banking and the e.u.'s likennen group. indeed, sir john vickers, chairman of the independent commission, has already criticized the u.k. coalition government from backing away from his original proposal while the european commission's recent report summarizing the responses received to the likennen report acknowledges the widespread opposition to the proposal in a charmingly understated fashion, stating: in general banks welcome the group's analysis but argue that a compelling case for mandatory separation of trading activities hasn't been made. they felt the proposal wasn't backed by the required evidence and that there was a need for a thorough impact assessment. with all due respect to my friends in the european financial regulatory community, when a regulatory proposal is viewed within the e.u. as being too harsh on a financial industry and harmful to markets, i think it's a clear sign that it's time to take a step back and reevaluate. regardless of what happens with respect to the vickers or likennen proposals, even if all of the
a positive or more negatively? >> pakistan sees a positive role for the eu, united states, other organizations, international organizations. but what is the role that nader sees for itself? is it military when we talk about nato? or is it economic? or is it political? i think nato doesn't appear to where so many hats. basically, when we talk about nato we're talking about military. well, that i think has already been discussed. but certainly the eu, other organizations, the united states, really has very important political role, economic role. i think afghanistan -- i think nader can also help support the iran army to do a better job with its resources. so we are in favor of that, this kind of role. there was one mentioned about india and transatlantic trade comments it appeared that also comes -- there are so may things that can be done if only the conflicts situation gets resolved, and also in the border area with pakistan. >> ambassador jawad, nato's will? >> yes, particularly i think your question was on nato's role through northern afghanistan. i think this is a key importa
weeks s. 250eu78. when one side knows that with 41 votes they can absolutely trash can something, why should they compromise? if they've got the 41 votes. again, i want to emphasize another act about my proposal. republicans have stated that filibuster are necessary because democrats increasingly employ procedural mar maneuvers to pret them from offering amendments. i offered guarantee rights to offer amendments filed in advance of a cloture vote so everyone knows what's coming, the right -- the inherent right of the minority to offer those raiments. -- amendments. unfortunately, of course, every republican voted against my proposal and that is because republicans currently want the best of both worlds; the right to offer nongermane amendments and the right to obstruct. this doesn't make sense. again, no one should be fooled. the fact is that the radicals who now hold sway in the republican party are not concerned with make the government or senate function better. that's why the current use of the filibuster has nothing to do with ensuring minority rights to debate or the right to am
states at 1.4, which means for every dollar you cut, you ha you had e lose $1 340eu in gross domestic product. goildman sax, which is not exactly a left-wing outfit has put it close to 1.5. cut $1, lose $1.50 in gross domestic product. economists at the the university of california have found that during recessions -- and it is important -- during recessions, the fiscal multiplier in developed countries generally falls between 1.5 and 2. that complicated economic gobbledygook boils down to this: $1 in reduced government spending will reduce gross domestic product by more than $1 -- by $1 340eu or $1.70 or whatever the multiplier is, and damages the economy without accomplishing the intended deficit reduction. other countries teame attemptedt austerity -- spain, greece, and portugal particularly have persistent double-dynel i think unemployment -- double-digit unemployment, over 126% i 26% in and greece, and they have anemic or negative economic growth rates. contrast that with the u.s. where a more balanced approach to the economic crisis yielded an unemployment rate that is still far
eu9 days. i -- every 90 days. i think the appropriators of the house and senate would come together. but every 90 days there would be an additional 1% until the appropriations bills or the year-long resolution has been enacted. these are designinged to keep both sides at the bargaining table. they aren't so small as to be irrelevant, but they're not so large as to cut 234eu programs. priorities of both republicans and democrats would be subject to the same across-the-board cuts. and both parties therefore would have an incentive to come to an agreement that fully funds priority programs and reduces funding for lower priorities. this bipartisan amendment may not be each lawmaker's idea of perfect. it is not mine smed i would rather get all the appropriations bills done. but that's not what's happening. but we should all agree that it improves upon the current situation where we bounce from crisis to crisis, worried about government shutdowns as well as to rush bills to avoid shutdowns much the american people want us to complete our work in a logical way. and this amendment helps us
, intergovernmental cooperation destroys responsibility and accountability. look at the e.u.. did the e.u. destroy greece, or did greece destroy the e.u.? it's probably both, but you can't tell, and they all blame each other. and the founders didn't need the e.u. to see these dangers. all of this arises from intergovernmental cooperation and commandeering. the founders didn't need the e.u. because they have the example of commandeering in front of them. it was the articles of confederation. and so they wrote a constitution that prohibits this and makes it very, very difficult in any event. the second objection to justice breyer or, rather, the objection to his second point is, well, if the feds want to send swarms of officers, let them try. as angela already suggested, they can't, and they won't, and if they do, they will have to pay the fiscal and political price. so i think in a weird way it would actually be great if we had fbi agents in santa clara breaking down the doors of gravely-ill pot smokers. that'll tell people more about the federal government than 15 papers from the cato institute. [
proposal, set forth by the uk independent commission on banking and the eu's group. sir john vickers, chairman of the independent commission, has argued criticized the coalition government and the backing away from his original proposal. while the european commission's recent report summarizes the responses received and it acknowledges the widespread opposition of a proposal in a determinedly understated action. it argues that a compelling case for mandatory separation of trading activities hasn't been made. they felt that the proposal is not backed by the required evidence and that there was a need for thorough impact assessment. with all due respect my to my friends in the european financial regulatory community, what a regulatory proposal is used within the eu, considered too harsh on the financial industry and harmful to markets, it's a clear sign that it's time to take a step back and reevaluate. regardless of what happens respect to the proposals, even if all of the most vitriolic allegations set forth are true, even if our financial giants act solely and ruthlessly out of self
that he felt that american television programming certainly appear in the '70 z, '70s, '0eu89d had a positive event demonstrating american vawms to the world. how do you think the world outside the united states show "24" and "homeland" and what effect do you think -- have you heard anything at all? >> yeah. "24" and "homeland" are extraordinarily popular not just in germany and in the u.k. but also in jordon, turkey, and places you, you know, frankly "24" is a huge knit iran. it's being beamed in illegally by i can't remember the name. >> you're not getting paid for it. >> right. i'm not getting paid for it, no. >> but it's smuggled in a lot. yeah. we heard it from -- [inaudible] >> >> yeah. >> and the actor who plays a character is persian and has a lot of connections in iran and he's been tracking . >> butt thing . >> tracking "homeland" in iran. >> and surprise stunningly popular. statement i have read a few criticisms of the show, and again, to the extend we sort of, i think, make piss people off on every side of the aisle and embraced too. tvs a good thing. i think one thing
and to the e.u., and i would just urge you that further progress in that area is going to continue to require american leadership, and i hope that we will continue to work in the region to ensure that they continue to make progress. >> we will, senator. and i just want to thank you for your leadership of the subcommittee. you've been absolutely terrific and i look forward to working with you. thanks. >> senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator, i appreciate your thoughtful opening statement and your thoughtful response to these questions. i have a great deal of respect for your level of experience, your knowledge in these areas and i would have enjoyed working with you as a member of the committee. i'm going to enjoy working with you as the secretary of state and i mean that in all sincerity. i want to have a close working relationship. as used in your opening statement, these are complex times. you know, i sort of grew up hoping that that maximum of politics at the water's edge was actually true. i'm not sure it ever was, but i think it's something we can aspire to. i truly think
about it. the laws differ in europe and in the u.s. the european process is a finding sort of at the eu level, and we've been under investigation for almost two years by the commissioner they are and his staff. and during this period, they get comments from everybody and we give them literally millions of documents. we have not come and we're busy negotiating with them. we don't think we violated any european laws, but we're happy to have a conversation and we're sort of now waiting on what they decide to do. we have been negotiating back and forth, and they announced that publicly. in the united states, the law is similar but different in the way it is applied to in our case the government decided to have the federal trade commission look at this and similar investigations are underway. there's a similar hearing. i testified at the hearings but again, i don't see the consumer arm under section two, and we've asked the government to come back and give us examples of things which are violation of law. we haven't seen that yet. we are also in negotiations with them. so i'll would say we t
enlarging the stability in europe itself by enlarging our institution, the eu or nato. what's happened to that agenda? is a no longer a part of the democratic countries? and if the answer is was so care about -- are whether georgia can become more stable, how do we get smarter about it? it isn't obvious our institutions hold the same if you used to hold five or six years ago. it isn't obvious that comes like ukraine had to stay democratizing instinct, the country of central europe had 10 years ago. so what, if anything, would you do different to make sure part of your democratic in state? >> i'd like to say quickly, i think some countries have taken a bit of an appetite suppressant when he came to their ambitions of being part of the european union, for example. >> but they are democratic. >> but they are democratic. but there also has to be benefit that flows. i think that is very much a part of the typos as to whether people are going to pursue being part of a larger union, being part of an obsession like nato. there has to be some apparent benefit in so doing. you know, the ability
. -- that our current immigration system is not working effectively, indeed is 235eu8ing 0en 00 -- indeed is failing ton a daily basis cannot be denied. it needs to be fixed. it is a challenge for us to do so and will not be easy. i would, however, warn my colleagues that a framework is not a bill. and in 2006 and 2007 with the full support of the republican president of the united states, a bipartisan committee announced with great confidence that they had a plan that was going to fix our immigration system and we were all just going to line upped and vote for it much the masters of the universe had decided -- they'd meat in secret, they had all the special interest groups gather and they had worked out a plan that was going to change our immigration system for the better and we should all be most grateful. it came up with 2006, it did not pass. it came back again in 2007 with even more emphasis, and it failed coul loss -- and it failed colossally. it did not do it what they said it would do. it did not end the illegality. it did not set forth a proper principle of immigration for amer
and should 34r5eu a role in incentivizing that process and ensuring that election improvements are made to last. it can help states move forward in using available technology and ensure states do a better job at enforcing laws that are already on the books. the national voter registration act commonly known as the motor voter law requires states to allow voters to register when they renew their license at the dmv or other governmental agencies. yet there are allegations that some states aren't fulfilling their obligations under this act. blue states, red states, purple states all across the country in talking with elections administrators from around the country it's clear to me that compliance with existing law is not complete. so we have to do more to ensure voters are afforded the rights given to them under current law and that state agencies are doing what's required to simplify the registration process, to maintain uniform an nondiscriminatory voartd rolls and to provide wide straight ahead -- widespread registration opportunities. enforcing existing laws is part of the conclusion
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)